| User: Mingo |
| go with the H&K...the Glock isnt much of a gun...its blocky,not very ergonomic and is hard to handle....H&K 's are probably some of the finest pistols out there |
| |
| User: pathfinder |
| It all boils down to individual preference. There is no gun as reliable, and able to take as much punishment as the Glock. If you have the money to blow on esthetics, then by all means buy the H&K. |
| |
| User: Mario M |
| Im a Glock owner and for money between Glock and HK i go with Glock.. |
| |
| User: Fireball |
| Why limit yourself to those two? Have you considered a SIG? Check out the P229 or the P239. |
| |
| User: H |
| HK: Quality, excellent; sharp looking; extremely functional.
Glock: Quality, excellent; different looking (blocky); extremely function.
HK: Manuel safety, yes (lever-type).
Glock: Manuel safety, yes (front of trigger--won't shoot until it's been depressed). In other words, don't stick your finger into the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot. How hard is that?
HK cost: EXPENSIVE.
Glock cost: Reasonable.
Do the math.
H |
| |
| User: bobbo342 |
| I like H's break down of his answer. I would also suggest looking into Springfield Armory XD Series. Not as expensive as the HK but in a lot of ways better than Glocks. |
| |
| User: Mask |
| H&K P2000SK is slightly longer, wider, and has a shorter barrel than the Glock 26. The H&K is hundreds of dollars more expensive (about $250 to $300 more). They both hold 10 rounds with standard mags. The H&K P2000SK does not have a manual safety.
I like Glocks and as long as you like the Glock grip angle and trigger then, IMO, the H&K is not worth the extra cash. Both are good pistols. Good luck. |
| |